Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

LPSC 2015: Philae at comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko
A report on 3 talks at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference about the Philae lander. The first two are about instrumental readings taken while Philae was bouncing before its final descent.

No. Don't give us a clue, or a hint, or something tangentially related. Just tell us why.

The linked page that you provided doesn't say anything about the size of the coma.

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg

Unsupported Assertion by Copypasta. If a comet is indeed rock as per your gullibly repeated thoughts of others then yes, a cloud of diffuse particles would be a difficult thing to explain. But you have not proven comets are rocks so you don't get to use that "fact" as proof of anything. Presenting one supposition as proof of another doesn't even rise to the level of circular logic.

I would still like to see Haig come up with a real calculation that the reaction rate of the loosened oxygen from the cometary surface and the protons of the solar wind is fast enough to actually create so much hydroxyl around the comet. Naturally, that would have to include also an esitmate of how much oxygen is produced by EDM.

Unfortunately, Haig can only copypaste texts that are only sideways relevant, and even though this thread is 6 years old, and there are several older threads with EC discussions embedded in EU themes, there is NOT EVEN A HINT OF A BACK OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATION for the water (hydroxyl) production. Not even on Thunderdolts, where apparently all the "experts" on Electic Universe are coming together.

Also my question about what would be the signature of EDM in the fields instruments gets ignored constantly, probably because they don't understand what an actual discharge would be doing in the field of EM radiation production.

It is pointless to discuss wit Haig or with Sol88 because they don't have even the most basic knowledge of physics, and they can only copypaste what they cherrypick from google searches, heck, even Talbott did not help these poor souls, and disappeared after a week or three (with friends like this, who needs ISF adversaries).

It is a great paradox in comet science: We are told that a comet nucleus is a ball of ice, or dirty snowball, or icy fluff ball that accreted billions of year ago in the solar system’s infancy. Comets are said to sublimate ices as they move toward the sun, and solar warming is responsible for much cometary activity. Yet this reasoning leaves unexplained countless puzzles in comet science. We ask the question, can the science of electrochemistry provide an answer to many comet mysteries?

__________________"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriadhttp://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

The answer is no. Electrochemistry requires a liquid medium to transport ions or direct contact between the reacting chemicals.
And therefore does not produce any visual effects in a vacuum.
The theories of anyone THAT ignorant of basic chemistry are not worth even the effort to click a link.

Hi Haig,
that is not you providing the calculations and data at all, for shame. You can do better.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Haig is a two-trick pony; taunts and linkspam. We won't be seeing any science written by him and of course no real science in his links.

I have a long acquaintance with Haig, from back in the mhaze days.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Hi Haig,
that is not you providing the calculations and data at all, for shame. You can do better.

Don't lie. He can't.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

ETA
Just scanned through a write up of this talk (on thunderdolts)
The guy does not think much of his audience: this is complicated, but I will keep it simple for you.
Most of it seems implausable, but I will let a chemist comment on that.

Interestingly (or should I say iron-ically), Thunderdolts do not seem to know the difference between "ions" and "irons" .... *sigh*

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

ETA
Just scanned through a write up of this talk (on thunderdolts)
The guy does not think much of his audience: this is complicated, but I will keep it simple for you.
Most of it seems implausable, but I will let a chemist comment on that.

Interestingly (or should I say iron-ically), Thunderdolts do not seem to know the difference between "ions" and "irons" .... *sigh*

I just read through the transcript too. You don't have to know much chemistry to know that electrochemistry is solution chemistry. Anariba is just trying to repackage the same old EU nonsense in the jargon of his professional specialty. And he's evidently willing to do that even for a system that doesn't fall within that specialty. Lukraak Sisser said it already above---his "idea" fails out of the box based on the definition alone. Just another big steaming delivery from our Electric Fetish friends.

__________________Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarianA target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba

We always enjoy you supporting delusions about comets by citing crackpot videos as if they were science, Haig !

Here we have an electrochemist rather incoherently talking about comets at a conference held by the deluded Thunderbolts crowd.
Read Transcript of EU2013 talk by Dr. Franklin Anariba and weep!
All he does is fantasize about electrochemistry on comets starting with the Thunderbolts delusion that comets are rocks ("rich in minerals, with silicates and transition metals'). Some cartoons, no science .

basically lying (quote mining) about Richard Feynman. What Richard Feynman actually observed in The Character of Physical Law was that a physical description of gravity as particles hitting bodies and being partially absorbed does not work and “So there is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.” (my emphasis)

confirming that he is a Velikovsky crank.

David Talbott with his "mythology is science" fantasy.
Dr. Donald Scott

a fantasy that counter rotating clouds at the poles of planets are caused by Birkeland currents.

a probable fantasy that the Ulysses space probe found a "downward flow of energy into the Sun’s north pole".

a definite fantasy that "a Birkeland current may be responsible for the planetary spacings described by the Titius-Bode Law"

Dr. Jerry Pollack with a fantasy about a fourth phase of water - negatively charged water. He may think that the auto-dissociation of water into hydronium and hydroxide ions magically persists when water evaporates.
More from the SAFIRE Project.
Ben Davidson (a lawyer!) will present an analysis between patterns of solar polar magnetic fields and earthquakes.
Dr. C.J. Ransom may present a bit of actual science .
The Nice model includes the migration of Jupiter from a inner position to its current position.
But his subject of collisions between planets sounds like Velikovsky's crank idea. He has an irrelevant talk about conical hats!
And another talk that sounds like examples of the "astronomers were surprised and so our crank idea is right" fallacy.
Michael Steinbacher: Plasma Catastrophist Geology - what more need be said !
TOM WILSON, PhD: Sounds like more of the "astronomers were surprised and so our crank idea is right" fallacy.
Eugene Bagashov will display his ignorance of science with a fantasy about an "orthogonal" force "that twists the galaxies in spirals and places planets and their satellites into orbits".
Bruce Leybourne will fantasize about "climate as the interplay between Field Aligned Currents in the ionosphere and Induction Currents charging Earth’s core"
Annis Scott will describe the EU universe - do not expect any science!
Dwardu Cardona may fantasize about what came before the Big Bang but may just spout gibberish as in the description of his talk!
Ignacio Cisneros - a poet The organizers of EU 2015 cannot even tell the difference between poetry and science!
Ev Cochrane: More Velikovsky idiocy (planets colliding in recent times).
Dr. Kongpop U-yen: looke like an electrical engineer with fantasies about astronomy and "quantum vibrations"
Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille will repeat his long held delusions about basic physics (Kirchhoff’s law).
Steve Crothers will repeat his delusions about GR with the lie about being a "preeminent mathematician", etc.

The individual compact particles have a bulk density of 800–3000 kg/m3, consistent with a variety of minerals or mixtures of minerals. On the other hand, the larger aggregates are made up of many sub-micron sized grains with void spaces in between, resulting in fluffy, highly porous structures that are mostly empty space. These aggregates are associated with the fluffy particles seen by Rosetta’s COSIMA instrument.

Marco explains: “Both the spacecraft and the dust particles are negatively charged, so there is a repulsive force between them. The amount of deceleration experienced by any particle is related to its charge and mass, with the maximum amount of charge held by the dust particle determined by its geometry.

So it's ALL electric then???????

Except for mainstreams adherence in the face of over whelming evidence that the initial process to get all these electrical effects under-way, is heat induced sub surface sublimation....how's that coming along RC?

How are the EUtards coming along with their numbers? Oh, that's right, they don't do numbers.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

The same way he gets everything else from actual science sources: by wildly misinterpreting it to fit his Velokovskian fantasies.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

The same way he gets everything else from actual science sources: by wildly misinterpreting it to fit his Velokovskian fantasies.

Not just misinterpreting, but obfuscating by omission. He failed to mention that the fluffy particles have a density of ~1 kg/m^3. And that there were only 193 detections of the compact particles, but 853 of the fluffy ones.
Add all that up, allowing for far more fluffies than compacts, not to mention the H2O being sublimated at 1000 kg/m^3, plus likely voids, then I don't see anything that would indicate that the density is anything other than that already measured for the comet, i.e. ~470kg/m^3.
No story here, move on.

Ah yes. And the voltage on the comet is how much? Oh, the article does mention it. Let's see, it's here somewhere. Right! 5 to 10 volts. Can you say 9 volt battery? I knew you could.

And how much force will that exert? How much jet activity will it produce? How much EDM?

Quote:

Except for mainstreams adherence in the face of over whelming evidence that the initial process to get all these electrical effects under-way, is heat induced sub surface sublimation....how's that coming along RC?

And speaking of the process to produce the observed voltage, you might want to actually read the link you provided, which states that it is "due to a variety of effects associated with the plasma environment of the comet and with solar UV photons hitting the spacecraft." It's really odd, but I don't see "heat-induced ... sublimation" there.

Ah yes. And the voltage on the comet is how much? Oh, the article does mention it. Let's see, it's here somewhere. Right! 5 to 10 volts. Can you say 9 volt battery? I knew you could.

TBF, I think the article mentioned the 5-10 volts as being on the spacecraft itself. However, the EU mathematical geniuses now have some figures to work from; if the charge on the craft is 5-10 V, and the density of the comet is measured as ~ 470 kg/m^3, but is, according to them, let's say 2000 kg/m^3, then what must be the charge on the comet to account for the discrepancy?
This shouldn't be too difficult to work out for people who are steeped in an "hypothesis" that is based around electricity. Having worked it out, then they can tell us what implications that has for such things as what happens when the charge inevitably discharges, as it must. Or if it doesn't discharge, then why? What is the mechanism keeping it in place?
These questions, and more, will be studiously ignored by the EU woo merchants, just as sure as ice is ice.

How are the EUtards coming along with their numbers? Oh, that's right, they don't do numbers.

To the average "EUtard", numbers are unimportant; basically just meaningless symbols. What matters most to the "Thunderdolts" is first-rate storytelling.

Quote:

David Novak will be the Master of Ceremony for Electric Universe 2015 Conference: Paths of Discovery. He is a performance storyteller and arts educator and creator of The Storytellers’ Compass, a method of narrative wayfinding. He has spoken at numerous theatres and festivals all over the country… In 1995/96, David Novak was Master Storyteller for the Disney Institute in Orlando, Florida.

To the average "EUtard", numbers are unimportant; basically just meaningless symbols. What matters most to the "Thunderdolts" is first-rate storytelling.

Quite so. Your post reminded me of a post I'd seen somewhere on the Rosetta blog some months ago. Managed to find it. From a Prof. Harvey Rutt, FREng, FInstP, FOSA, FIEE, SMIEEE, CEng, CPhys, University of Southampton, U.K. Post is too long too quote in full, but the final paragraph pretty much sums EU up for me;

"Another thing one might look at is the qualifications of the 'leading lights'. None of them has a substantial academic pedigree in this field in terms of qualifications, publications, Fellow of major Societies etc. So either they are brilliant Mavericks, bravely carving out a new route - or those who couldn't make it in real science, living in a fantasy world, running content free, incestuous conferences where no one ever asks difficult questions, with a distinctly commercial look to them.

I'll stick with real science."

Sums it up far more eloquently than I could.

From hxxp://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/01/22/watching-the-birth-of-a-comet-magnetosphere/

What I find interesting about the blog post is that it's an example of mainstream astrophysics talking about electrical and magnetic fields in relation to comets, showing that it's not something mainstream astrophysics ignores.

__________________The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!

What I find interesting about the blog post is that it's an example of mainstream astrophysics talking about electrical and magnetic fields in relation to comets, showing that it's not something mainstream astrophysics ignores.

Indeed we are not ignoring it.Here is a paper on magnetic fields and plasma physics at comet 1P/HalleyHere is a paper predicting waves created by ions from comet 67P/CG.

On Monday the general assembly of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) starts, with on Monday afternoon and Tuesday the whole day talks about Rosetta. Here is a list of all the talks in that session, with a quick count there are 5 talks from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (including mine).Here is a list of all the posters in that session, with a quick count there are 13 posters from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

What I find interesting about the blog post is that it's an example of mainstream astrophysics talking about electrical and magnetic fields in relation to comets, showing that it's not something mainstream astrophysics ignores.

Yeah, they are now being forced to, bit of a change from ... never mentioning it before

The observation of antitails contributed significantly to the discovery of solar wind.[54] The ion tail is formed as a result of the ionisation by solar ultra-violet radiation of particles in the coma. Once the particles have been ionized, they attain a net positive electrical charge, which in turn gives rise to an "induced magnetosphere" around the comet.

but

GIADA says different

Quote:

Because the escape speed of both types of dust particles from the surface of Comet 67P/C-G should be the same, the fluffy aggregates must be decelerated somehow. The scientists believe that this is happening due to Rosetta itself. Measurements made by Rosetta’s RPC-LAP instrument show that the spacecraft is negatively charged at between –5 and –10 volts due to a variety of effects associated with the plasma environment of the comet and with solar UV photons hitting the spacecraft. This negative potential acts to decelerate approaching dust particles, which are also negatively charged.
Marco explains: “Both the spacecraft and the dust particles are negatively charged, so there is a repulsive force between them. The amount of deceleration experienced by any particle is related to its charge and mass, with the maximum amount of charge held by the dust particle determined by its geometry.

Since the beginning of Rosetta’s orbital observations, over a hundred small bright spots have been identified inimages returned by its OSIRIS NAC camera, in all types of morphological regions on the nucleus. Bright spots arefound as clusters of several tens of individuals in the vicinity of cliffs, or isolated without clear structural relation tothe surrounding terrain. They are however mostly observed in the areas of the nucleus currently receiving the lowestamount of insolation and some of the best examples appear completely surrounded by shadows. Their typical sizesare of the order of a few metres and they are often observed at the surfaces of boulders of larger dimension. Thebrightness of these spots is up to ten times the average brightness of the surrounding terrain and multi-spectralanalyses show a significantly bluer spectrum over the 0.3-1
m range.

And you could have gone on to mention the following passage from the abstract:
"In particular, recent sublimation experiments conducted
at the University of Bern reproduce the spectro-photometric variability observed at the surface of the nucleus by
sequences of formation and ejection of a mantle of refractory organic-rich dust at the surface of the icy material.
The formation of hardened layers of ice by sintering/re-condensation below the uppermost dust layer can also
have strong implications for both the photometric and mechanical properties of the subsurface layer. Based on
the comparison between OSIRIS observations and laboratory results, our favoured interpretation of the observed
features is that the bright spots are exposures of water ice, resulting from the removal of the uppermost layer of
refractory dust that covers the rest of the nucleus."

So, matches what they expect from SUBLIMATION. Expectation of hardened subsurface layer, which matches Philae's findings. Bright spots are exposures of WATER ICE.
Not sure why you'd link to an abstract that totally bears out the mainstream theory you appear to dislike. It's not often people hammer nails into their own coffins. Thanks for the link.

One of them is even called "Electric fields and cold electrons in the vicinity of Comet Halley", or "Simultaneous observations of quasistatic electric fields and large dust particles during the Vega-2 flyby of comet Halley".

I am trying to ignore most of the nonsens that Sol88 is writing, but blatant lies I need to correct.

And by the way,
the wiki on anti-tails is talking about IONS, whereas the GIADA quote is talking about CHARGED DUST, the two species are NOT the same and definitely do not behave the same for obvious reasons.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

Yeah, they are now being forced to, bit of a change from ... never mentioning it before

It seems to me to be far more likely that you simply missed them mentioning such things while you were madly scanning for things to cherry pick.

__________________I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein
If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill

Wrong, Sol88: Low and behold THE COMET ELECTRIC delusion from the Thunderbolts cranks that you cannot understand is a delusion for some reason.

Real science is that astronomers know that electromagnetism exists and how it works. We have a negatively charged spacecraft and dust particles because of standard plasma physics:

Quote:

Measurements made by Rosetta’s RPC-LAP instrument show that the spacecraft is negatively charged at between –5 and –10 volts due to a variety of effects associated with the plasma environment of the comet and with solar UV photons hitting the spacecraft. This negative potential acts to decelerate approaching dust particles, which are also negatively charged.

This is not the delusions that that Earth used to orbit Saturn, planets collided or that comets were blasted off planets (all in recent history ) that you are supporting, Sol88.

Not just misinterpreting, but obfuscating by omission. He failed to mention that the fluffy particles have a density of ~1 kg/m^3. And that there were only 193 detections of the compact particles, but 853 of the fluffy ones.
Add all that up, allowing for far more fluffies than compacts, not to mention the H2O being sublimated at 1000 kg/m^3, plus likely voids, then I don't see anything that would indicate that the density is anything other than that already measured for the comet, i.e. ~470kg/m^3.
No story here, move on.

What are you saying Sol88 doesn't actually read the articles that they link too?
Or try to understand them?

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

And you could have gone on to mention the following passage from the abstract:
"In particular, recent sublimation experiments conducted
at the University of Bern reproduce the spectro-photometric variability observed at the surface of the nucleus by
sequences of formation and ejection of a mantle of refractory organic-rich dust at the surface of the icy material.
The formation of hardened layers of ice by sintering/re-condensation below the uppermost dust layer can also
have strong implications for both the photometric and mechanical properties of the subsurface layer. Based on
the comparison between OSIRIS observations and laboratory results, our favoured interpretation of the observed
features is that the bright spots are exposures of water ice, resulting from the removal of the uppermost layer of
refractory dust that covers the rest of the nucleus."

So, matches what they expect from SUBLIMATION. Expectation of hardened subsurface layer, which matches Philae's findings. Bright spots are exposures of WATER ICE.
Not sure why you'd link to an abstract that totally bears out the mainstream theory you appear to dislike. It's not often people hammer nails into their own coffins. Thanks for the link.

Again, further proof that Sol88 might as well be a robot that just links material without reading it.

Why is that Sol88?

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Indeed we are not ignoring it.Here is a paper on magnetic fields and plasma physics at comet 1P/HalleyHere is a paper predicting waves created by ions from comet 67P/CG.

On Monday the general assembly of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) starts, with on Monday afternoon and Tuesday the whole day talks about Rosetta. Here is a list of all the talks in that session, with a quick count there are 5 talks from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (including mine).Here is a list of all the posters in that session, with a quick count there are 13 posters from the Rosetta Plasma Consortium.

Tusenfem, how do us mere mortals get in on the action?

Do they do webcast's? Release papers?

or all sit behind closed doors stroking each others beards nodding in agreeance with sublimation theory?

So how's the hunt for "ice" and confirmation of the sublimation theory going??

Not so good from what I can see.

You need new glasses.

__________________"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law